To my thinking, the Politics & Debate (P&D) board has a few distinct requirements from other boards here, as the term "debate" conveys a particular meaning and format.
Central to a fair and vibrant debate is the moderator, who Wikipedia defines as "a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion." In our current P&D Forum, the moderator is, in contrast, a very active board participant, with strongly worded posts of conservative ideology – as well as, shall we say, colorful observations of other members.
As a result, some board participants find an inherent conflict of interest related to the Report function for a P&D post. Why? It's because P&D Reports are adjudicated by a moderator who has often expressed a contrasting view, or in a small number of cases, is the person whose own comments are in question.
So, perhaps there are two acceptable roads. The P&D board could have a single, neutral moderator, who -- in the tradition of a regulating a fair debate -- would not post his own political leanings. Or, the P&D board could bring on a second moderator with a liberal/progressive perspective who would act as a form of counterbalance.
As it stands, the P&D board is not a place where there's an equal footing for all. I hope this issue can be looked at with a minimum of finger pointing, and instead, as an opportunity to enhance the board's function and bring back some of the dispirited past participants.
